ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Doom 3 Performance
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Are they fully DX10 or partially? If partially, will that be enough to be Vista compliant?Clauzii - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I´m pretty amased that ATI despite the higher clockrate can acomplish almost the same as a 7800GTX although with 2/3 the Pipelinecapacity.I´ll look even more forward to R580.
MemberSince97 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Ahh Thank You Derek, this is much more AT style.Madellga - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Derek, nice update. Thanks for including 1920x1200 in the benchmarks, it is a good move and I hope that other sites follow AT on that.It is interesting to see how the performance of some higher level cards fall after 1600x1200. Anyone buying WS monitors should pay attention to this.
I was not conviced that the X1800XT was better performer than the 7800GTX, but looking at the WS high resolutions and AA+AF that pretty much settles the discussion.
Don't let the critics bug you. Use it as feedback and source of ideas for future reviews.
On the next article, please do not forget to check the famous "shimmering" effect.
Does the R520 family handles this issue better than the G70?
Take care
JNo - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Well put! This is extremely helpful for 1920x1200 LCD ownerserinlegault - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I think important point that is missing from all reviews is the importance of a Vista compatible graphics crad. The x1xxx's are the first graphics cards compatible with the new spec.So the price premium may be worth while if you are interested in upgrading the Vista, when ever it is finally released.
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
All you need is DX9 to be Vista compatible.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Oops, DX8.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
From the article:Yet you guys tested none. I think benchmarking available versions of FEAR, Call of Duty 2, Serious Sam 2, Black and White 2, etc would be much more enteresting than some of the choices made here. All the cards tested handle todays games well, but I would expect most who buy these cards are buying these for games that are soon-to-be released or coming in the next one or two quarters.
karlreading - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
i must admit it seems to me everyones just giving anadtech a hard time. the review seemed prtty reasonable, they responded to the massive backlash they got from there first review, and i think thats where the deserve the credit. sheesh guys! givem a break!karlos